Will Google Glass make privacy impossible?

Share This article

Aside from whether or not Google’s Glass will actually have enough features to catch on after the cool factor of computer glasses wears off, the biggest concern facing the wearable computer is how it will affect privacy. One advocacy group, Stop the Cyborgs, warns that Google’s Glass will make privacy impossible.

Amidst the buzz of Google’s Glass, a couple of negative aspects of the wearable computer weren’t exactly disregarded, but were definitely flying low under the radar. We discussed one of the negative aspects before — that we haven’t seen the unit show off any kind of revolutionary functionality yet. Its major selling point seems to be that it can record video without you having to press a button with your finger, and without having to position the camera with your hand. This leads to the other negative aspect of Glass that is picking up steam lately: creep shots.

Right now, creep shots exist all over the internet. You have probably taken some yourself without actually realizing it (or classifying it as such). That drunk guy sleeping on the train wearing funny pants that you put up on Instagram? That was technically a creep shot, and you invaded that guy’s privacy. People of Walmart and Look at this F*cking Hipster — sites that traded in specialized, themed creep shots — became so popular that they got book deals. Advocacy group Stop the Cyborgs warns that Google’s Glass will make privacy impossible because of the ease with which users can snap photos and record video. However, it’s no different than the ease with which we snap photos or record videos with our phones.

In order to snap a secret picture with a phone, you have to hold the phone up and aim it at your target. This is usually noticeable if the target is looking directly at you. With Glass, you just point your head in your target’s direction, which is less noticeable than waving a phone around in the air. However, with Glass (so far, at least), you have to provide an audible command. So, while the cute girl standing on the other side of the train probably won’t hear you tell your glasses to take a picture, everyone else around you will. Most likely, she won’t see you stealthily position your phone in her direction. Even if she does, you’re technically just holding your phone’s screen in front of your face, possibly doing one of a million tasks that require you to raise your phone up in the first place.

In an anonymous email to the BBC from a Stop the Cyborgs member, it is disclosed that the group’s goal isn’t to completely ban the Glass, but to set some kind of universally accepted physical boundaries with technology similar to Glass. One West Virginia state legislator recently introduced a bill that would ban not just Google’s Glass, but all head-mounted devices, while driving. So, Stop the Cyborgs isn’t the only group looking to prevent some of the dangers of wearable computing before it becomes widespread. (See: I’ve seen the future: Hands on with Google Glass.)

It is, for lack of a better word, weird that Google’s Glass is becoming a such a hot-button topic before even a beta launch of the product, especially when the product basically just puts a tiny smartphone screen on your head. Remember, as far as people outside of Google are aware, the Glass doesn’t introduce any new functionality we’ve never seen before in tech. It simply takes some things we can do with our smartphones, and puts those things over our eyes. However, it’s not a bad thing that the impending launch of Glass is getting society to think about the ways upcoming technology could disrupt everyday life. The world of law is still reeling from the effects of piracy and DRM, and those concepts have been around for quite some time now. Getting the ball rolling now on how society should handle wearable computing when it becomes prevalent is a good way to prepare for unforeseen issues.

Ultimately, though, Google’s Glass won’t make privacy impossible like Stop the Cyborgs suggests. Unless it receives some new features of which we’re currently unaware, it won’t even change how privacy is currently handled. After all, Glass is essentially a smartphone on your face, and it’s not exactly difficult to sneak pictures or coyly look up information with our smartphones as it is.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Lol, I’d love to see a real lawsuit come over ‘privacy’. Taking a picture is no different than telling your friends about that funny guy on the train.

mori bund

I wonder if you’d say the same thing if you were “the funny guy” in that picture everyone (including people who know you) can see on the internet…

Joel Hruska

The difference is the degree of movement and motion required to activate the record functions. Someone holding up a smartphone is noticeable. Someone simply wearing Google Glass is a lot less noticeable.

I’m no fan of these capabilities. I recognize their potential value in recording illegal behavior at events or from authorities, I see the potential for fun documentation and life recording, but as a general rule, I don’t think everything we do should be recorded by anyone who feels like it for posting and humiliation. Being human in public shouldn’t mean volunteering to be an Internet meme for perpetuity.

Debaditya Chatterjee

also, as google makes advances in miniaturization technology, one of the next iterations of google glass may be indistinguishable from normal spectacles, increasing the “peeping tom” factor exponentially.

assuming, of course, people in that time still wear normal spectacles and havent completely switched over to bionic contact lenses.

ward376

If you’re outside your home, you should have zero expectation of privacy and not much more if you’re inside. Get over it.

Joel Hruska

” and not much more if you’re inside.”

Thank God the Supreme Court disagrees. You have the right to whatever sexual behavior you find desirable between yourself and your consenting adult partner because there’s a difference between public and private. Your goods and thoughts are protected against “unreasonable search and seizure” because there’s a difference between lawful possessions in your home and hurling your belongings into the street.

There are literally centuries of law underlying the idea that what you do in your home, provided it does not constitute a crime for other reasons (murder, physical/emotional abuse, running an illegal business) is private.

ward376

I didn’t express that very well – I wish that there could be true privacy in our homes and I have zero concerns about what others do in their homes as long they’re not hurting someone.

But as a practical matter, almost every single one of us is carrying around what amounts to a tracking device and that device can also easily transmit sounds and images without the permission from the person carrying it. And the tech exists to listen and ‘see’ through walls. Your energy usage can be tracked; myriad other examples, too much to list and I’m sure I don’t even know about most of it. Not to mention internet ‘privacy’.

It’s not that I don’t think we should have privacy, and yes I’m aware that legally, it’s protected. I just don’t think that assuming you’re in complete privacy in this day and age is prudent.

It may sound paranoid – but it’s true.

http://www.facebook.com/damon.bailey.14 Damon Bailey

i would have opened with your reply…. lol. the unfortunate truth is, your somewhat right. that bad part, as a country as a whole, we keep re-electing the retards with no technological back ground, to make decisions about how and why technology is used. Automakers cant use LED or Laser headlamps, but the US can issue Kill orders via drones on US citizens. sure Mr senator, listening in to any cell phone at any time without notification or due cause will only help us catch terrorists…

And people wonder why most of the world hates us….

http://www.facebook.com/dean.roussel.3 Dean Roussel

Just to answer the question posed by the headline.

Only if you wear them.

Rick Smith

There is no legal expectation of privacy when you are out in public. This includes pictures of you AND videos. This is been decided by the courts already. Not sure what the hubbub is all about. I suspect that if this were an Apple product less people would be complaining.

jqpabc123

The key word there is *legal*. Legally, you are correct. Socially, no one wants to talk to a geek with a camera mounted on his head.

Google Glass will make it much easier to identify people that you really don’t want to talk to.

Bugsy

Everyone with those on is a peeping tom.

http://twitter.com/LucSeaCroft Luc Seacroft

Why is it needed?? its a step too far technology is not company and it is not progress.

jqpabc123

… especially when the product basically just puts a tiny smartphone screen on your head.

Ugh, no.

The problem is that the product basically puts a camera on your head that records to Google’s servers. You become a walking version of Google Street View.

The one thing you can always count on with Google — anything they produce will somehow have privacy invasion baked into it.

Ilovegoogleglass

I don’t see the big bluff with Google Glass. People should be embracing it rather than hating on it. People should stop worrying about there privacy with Google glass but to worry about the big brother. I say a go with facial recognition with Facebook, if you don’t want people using on you don’t create a Facebook or make it private. Isn’t Facebook all about socializing its rather a tool to help you socialize.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.